So where do you stand with the ACLU and their defense of a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through Skokie?
Tough call.
As for the founding fathers and their idea of freedom of speech, the First Amendment protects us against the government, a worthy goal:
"Many people are shocked to learn that the First Amendment free speech guarantee, along with all constitutional rights, only protects us against the government. So, if the government interferes with your freedom of speech, you can bring a First Amendment lawsuit to challenge that. And that's true whether we're talking about a federal government official or a state or local government official. But guess what? Facebook, Twitter, the other social media platforms are not the government. They are private sector entities, and therefore, they have no First Amendment obligation to protect your freedom of speech."
— Nadine Strossen, professor at New York Law Schoo
Mr. Jones is nearly as awful as the neo-Nazi group, but I don't want the government stopping either, where would we draw the line?
Oh man, above my pay grade for sure.
But I'd make some distinctions. It's one thing to say that the government can't jail you for your thoughts and beliefs. I don't think I have a problem with that. But I don't think that means that an entity, a private company like Twitter say, or a publisher, should be forced to distribute those ideas. If Twitter refuses to publish conspiracy theories, no one is preventing the holders of those ideas from expressing their beliefs. They can go elsewhere, they can self-publish. Calling private companies like Twitter et al "public spaces" is, imo, an error and we simply have not properly come up with policies regulating social media. Now I know that when I use the term "regulate" people cringe, but everything we do is regulated and there are good historical reasons for that. No one sane considers that stopping at red lights is an abrogation of their individual freedom.
(As an aside, would many people think that free speech absolutism applies to those who want to discuss adult-child sexual relationships. Somehow I doubt it. On the scale of repulsive human ideas, is that worse that Nazis advocating extermination of degenerates.)
In short, maybe the government shouldn't be allowed to jail you for an idea, but that doesn't mean that publishers should be obligated to propagate them either. I don't think that's what the free speech doctrine implies. I could be talking through my hat here, I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I'm not even a US citizen.
When the algorithms of youtube push Alex Jones videos to the fore so that a critical mass of village idiots decide to go hound the people whose kids were murdered, I do not believe that Jones' right to free speech extends so far that it's ok to threaten innocent victims. Imo, that's way past the purview of free speech or participating in the free market of ideas. Sure, they sued and won, but did they get their money yet? Was it ok for Jones' followers to hound them for ten years with no consequences?
In the old days, whacko ideas died at the bar, they didn't acquire large number followers in the town square. I think that pretending that social media is just an extension of the town square is an immature idea that needs more work. We've created something new and the wild west has produced very bad consequences.
As for neo-Nazi marches and the ACLU, while they were just marching and chanting, well, where's the real harm you could say. You could say that about "woke" too but some states have already legislated control over "woke" discussions in public schools and colleges. Didn't Florida give itself the right to remove some trans children from their parents in some circumstances? If the state has no right to interfere in public Nazi marches, how could it possibly have the right to interfere in the private lives of citizens.